Luz Marie Connally v. Kenneth Mannas, Independent of the Estate of Robert Walter Mannas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 03-24-00167-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00167-CV

Luz Marie Connally, Appellant

v.

Kenneth Mannas, Independent Executor of the Estate of Robert Walter Mannas, Appellee

FROM THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-PB-16-001213, THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Kenneth Mannas, Independent Executor of the Estate of Robert Walter

Mannas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Mannas asserts that appellant Luz Marie

Connally failed to timely file a notice of appeal and that, consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s appellate

jurisdiction. In re United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 307 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding)

(explaining that requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b)

(appeal perfected when notice of appeal is filed). A notice of appeal generally must be filed within

thirty days after the judgment is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. However, the deadline to file a

notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the judgment is signed when a party timely files

a motion for new trial. Id. R. 26.1(a)(1).

The record in this case reflects that the probate court signed an order on

November 21, 2023, granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Mannas and dismissing the cause with prejudice. On December 20, 2023, Connally filed a motion for new trial. Therefore,

assuming without deciding that the probate court’s summary-judgment order is otherwise final and

appealable and that Connally’s motion for new trial was timely and extended her appellate

deadline, the deadline for Connally to file her notice of appeal from the judgment was

February 19, 2024. See id. (notice of appeal deadline extended to ninety days after judgment

is signed when motion for new trial is filed). That deadline might have been extended to

March 5, 2024, if Connally had filed a motion for extension of time with this Court and a notice

of appeal in the probate court within fifteen days of the deadline. See id. R. 26.3 (providing that

appellate court may extend time to file notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after deadline for

filing notice of appeal, party files notice of appeal in trial court and motion to extend time in

appellate court); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997) (holding that

motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal is implied when appellant, acting in good faith,

files notice of appeal within fifteen-day period allowed by rules of appellate procedure). Connally

did not file a notice of appeal until March 6, 2024. Connally filed a motion for extension of time

to file a notice of appeal on March 8, 2024, requesting that we extend the deadline for filing the

notice of appeal to March 6, 2024.

Because Connally’s notice of appeal was untimely, this Court does not have

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b); In re United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

307 S.W.3d at 307. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We deny Connally’s motion for extension of time to file

a notice of appeal and dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

2 __________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 28, 2024